 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Drapel6/10/2002
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
A jury found Gabriel Drapel guilty of possessing cocaine, methamphetamine and flunitrazepam for sale. On appeal he argues he did not receive a fair trial because the prosecution failed to produce, or produce in a timely manner, exculpatory and material information to which he was entitled under Penal Code section 1054.1 and Brady v. Maryland. He also contends the trial court unreasonably refused to allow him to produce evidence in his defense. Because we find the latter contention has merit, we reverse.
FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW
Officer Selleh (Selleh) and other law enforcement officers were watching a house at 1441 Bel Air Drive, when a woman in a black Mitsubishi drove up and parked in the driveway. Another female, Gina Craft (Craft), emerged from the residence, greeted her, and invited her inside to "see what they've done with the house." Shortly after the arrival of the black Mitsubishi defendant arrived in a truck and parked behind the Mitsubishi. According to Selleh, defendant's truck was loaded with "stuff from a home," or "furniture type items," giving Selleh the impression someone was moving into the Bel Air Drive residence. Defendant greeted the females and took one of the items from the truck into the house. Selleh then concluded his surveillance.
The following day Selleh observed a house on Venetta Drive. There he saw Craft and defendant drive off in defendant's truck, which again was loaded with household items. Police officers stopped the two in a parking lot. Selleh later arrived with a search warrant for defendant and the house on Bel Air Drive.
Selleh asked defendant where he was living and defendant replied he lived on Dorrington Street. Subsequently, however, defendant told Selleh he lived at the Bel Air Drive address.
Selleh advised defendant and Craft he was taking them to the Bel Air Drive residence. Selleh asked if defendant expected anyone to be at the residence. Defendant suggested people might be there making a pornographic film.
A search of Craft, defendant and defendant's truck yielded a pager and notebook belonging to defendant and several keys. The notebook contained references to "1441." Defendant possessed eight keys and Craft had one. Some of defendant's keys opened locks at the Bel Air Drive address, including the top dead bolt to the front door, but did not unlock the door knob lock. Craft's key did not unlock any of the doors to the Bel Air Drive residence.
Upon arrival at the Bel Air Drive residence, the police announced themselves and stated they had a search warrant. When no one responded they forced entry. Several officers went inside while defendant and Craft remained outside watched by an officer.
Once inside, officers used one of defendant's keys to open the master bedroom door. There, behind a night stand, the officers found a shopping bag containing plastic baggies filled with substances later shown to be methamphetamine and cocaine and two vials of drugs with defendant's name on them. One of the vials contained flunitrazepam.
The vials and baggies were not fingerprinted. Selleh explained at trial he did not order fingerprinting because he and other officers touched the items with their bare hands, thus contaminating them. Selleh stated, outside the jury's presence, that based on Craft's s
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 California DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|